Issues Related To Framing And Interpretation Of Studies In The Orthopaedic Literature
Abstract
In research, appropriate statistical interpretation and methodology are essential to conduct quality work. To interpret results, p-values are frequently used in isolation, but this is insufficient as treatment effects, confidence intervals (CIs), and clinically important thresholds should also be reported. Further, the equality, superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence frameworks have critical differences not well delineated in current literature. We conducted a systematic review of studies published in high-impact orthopaedic journals and examined a) how well studies interpreted the results of patient-reported outcome measures, and b) whether a consistent framework was used throughout studies. We found that the majority of studies do not report CIs around between-group differences and do not define a clinically meaningful difference. Half of studies reporting sample size calculations had inconsistency between framing of their research question, sample size calculation, and conclusion. Authors should report results with clinical context and maintain framework consistency to prevent misleading treatment recommendations.